Jump to content

Vaccine- who will have it?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Banker said:

Don’t panic, the 3 day vaccinations program is restarted, Oxford one waiting for paperwork!!

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/vaccination-programme-continues-today/

3 days a week is not enough. 

If one person with the 'old' coronavirus passes it onto three people, and those three people pass onto three more people for ten cycles, there will be 59,000 infections. That's almost 70% of the Island's population. The 'new' variant will rip through our community at an alarming rate.

What is it that COMIN and their advisers don't understand? As I have said in the other blog, I have now lost all confidence in the Public Health advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So it's not a bypass of fact checking that's accelerating this. Usually, vaccine development is a project like any other. Take the Prom for example. You put in an order or request for a bunch of

I'll have it.  I'm not going to be trying to jump the queue or otherwise particularly seek it out though, but if someone at the hospital approaches me with a needle I won't run away. The safety f

I'll definitely have it. So amusing to watch those brave and bold people who didn't mind/care if they got the virus (and in so doing not knowing how it would affect them) now hand wringing over the sa

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

3 days a week is not enough. 

If one person with the 'old' coronavirus passes it onto three people, and those three people pass onto three more people for ten cycles, there will be 59,000 infections. That's almost 70% of the Island's population. The 'new' variant will rip through our community at an alarming rate.

What is it that COMIN and their advisers don't understand? As I have said in the other blog, I have now lost all confidence in the Public Health advice.

That’s just scaremongering. It shows either panic or total lack of understanding of R. 

Has anywhere had an R rate of 3?  No!

Plus you ignore the effect of lockdown. That has a huge dampening effect.

This is all about risk management. No precaution can be 100% effective. So 14 day gold standard isolation had a 0.5% risk. We’ve now extended to 21 days or 14 and tests on days 1, 6/7 and 13.

Youre brighter than this Andy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Wright said:

That’s just scaremongering. It shows either panic or total lack of understanding of R. 

Has anywhere had an R rate of 3?  No!

Plus you ignore the effect of lockdown. That has a huge dampening effect.

This is all about risk management. No precaution can be 100% effective. So 14 day gold standard isolation had a 0.5% risk. We’ve now extended to 21 days or 14 and tests on days 1, 6/7 and 13.

Youre brighter than this Andy.

It's not scaremongering. It's highlighting the potential of what it is capable of if it's not dealt with properly. The risk management is only as good as the 'treatment'. The treatment (testing) was removed because someone in their almighty wisdom couldn't see that a positive test on arrival and subsequent tests was a good move. It was more about this stupid idea that somehow using percentages would wish it away. A positive test is as good as a negative. Simply because you know it's there and can do something about it and stop it in it's tracks.

Just wait and see what happens JW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Paperwork duly strapped to pigeons leg and ready to fly once the indemnity for the pigeon is sorted and also his landing papers. A few days should see us near to starting 

This wind is getting up. Its gonna blow the pigeon off course. Paperwork will be lost and a new set will have to be handwritten. Then there's the search for another pigeon. Of course everything has to be in order.

I hope and prey that one of our journos asks so proper questions today

1) What deliveries of vaccine have we had (by type and number) and when they arrived

2) Day to day figure for number administered (Type/Group)

3) Rolling number with 1 shot

4) Rolling number with both shots

Time to stop all this weasel worded deflection and treat us like we are actually stakeholders in this process.

 

  • Thanks 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

It's not scaremongering. It's highlighting the potential of what it is capable of if it's not dealt with properly. The risk management is only as good as the 'treatment'. The treatment (testing) was removed because someone in their almighty wisdom couldn't see that a positive test on arrival and subsequent tests was a good move. It was more about this stupid idea that somehow using percentages would wish it away. A positive test is as good as a negative. Simply because you know it's there and can do something about it and stop it in it's tracks.

Just wait and see what happens JW.

Totally agree with you, Andy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dreamon said:

Totally agree with you, Andy.

Using percentages with a small data set is next to useless. And I'm really surprised that this bullshit is still being rolled out by the MBE and his Public Health cohorts. We're talking people here in a community of no more than 85K. They are people that we know, not someone across the other side of the planet. I do wish they'd stop this percentages crap and start talking about real numbers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Using percentages with a small data set is next to useless. And I'm really surprised that this bullshit is still being rolled out by the MBE and his Public Health cohorts. We're talking people here in a community of no more than 85K. They are people that we know, not someone across the other side of the planet. I do wish they'd stop this percentages crap and start talking about real numbers.

Politicians (and their cs) don't like real numbers. Real numbers come with accountability and can require explanation to the unwashed.

Best to hide behind "percentages", pretending that they're looking at the bigger picture.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to maybe be a bit behind the curve on this but what 'indemnity' are / were we actually waiting for.

Is it to absolve the UK NHS from any negative or destructive effects of the vaccines or is it from the manufacturers for the same reason ?

Or have I missed something? (probably - not been well)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Apple said:

Sorry to maybe be a bit behind the curve on this but what 'indemnity' are / were we actually waiting for.

Is it to absolve the UK NHS from any negative or destructive effects of the vaccines or is it from the manufacturers for the same reason ?

Or have I missed something? (probably - not been well)

I understand it’s an indemnity from uk to crown dependencies which Ashie insist is checked by AGs office, other crown dependencies take indemnity as being acceptable and crack on whether they have paperwork or not which is probably why they started mid December 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Banker.

Does that mean the UK government takes responsibility if we all start dropping like flies then. Or is it just down to each individual to sign for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Banker said:

I understand it’s an indemnity from uk to crown dependencies which Ashie insist is checked by AGs office, other crown dependencies take indemnity as being acceptable and crack on whether they have paperwork or not which is probably why they started mid December 

They're probably non-negotiable anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Apple said:

Thanks @Banker.

Does that mean the UK government takes responsibility if we all start dropping like flies then. Or is it just down to each individual to sign for it.

No.

The UK ( and devolved administrations ) have all passed exculpatory legislation, as has IoM and each CI. However the only supply line for the CD’s, Gib, BoT’s, or DT’s is via UK, which has approved the vaccines for emergency use ( we don’t have our own approval mechanism ), bought it from Pfizer, AZ or Modena, handled it, stored it and transported it. 

Id not trust Boris & Co, if I were advising, I’d want to see a proper meaningful signed indemnity. Wouldn’t you?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uk upto 2.4m vaccinations today so fair play try do seem to be ramping up roll out with 1/3 over 8os done by yesterday and hoping to have all over 70s + health workers done by end February 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Wright said:

That’s just scaremongering. It shows either panic or total lack of understanding of R. 

Has anywhere had an R rate of 3?  No!

Plus you ignore the effect of lockdown. That has a huge dampening effect.

This is all about risk management. No precaution can be 100% effective. So 14 day gold standard isolation had a 0.5% risk. We’ve now extended to 21 days or 14 and tests on days 1, 6/7 and 13.

Youre brighter than this Andy.

Looking at some of the bellends posting on FB, there is a number of people exploiting the lockdown guidance...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...